In NRA prone shooting this match up happens all the time. Go to a 600 or 1,000 yd shot and you are going to see the military teams shooting right along side of the civilians. In my opinion they compare rather well, the best of each group very good indeed. The military guys are very tough with metalic sights, as this is all they get to use for the most part, as they shoot irons in the "any sight" portion of the match.

At one time the military was strapped for long range instructors, and they recruited some distinguished expert class civilians to help teach long range riflery. This happened just a few short years ago. There was very little mentioned about it puplicly. I know because I know someone who was invited to go.

SO IMHO they are quite comparable in their skills. They just get to shoot free ammo...sort of anyway

Don't know about rifle competition, but in handgun competition. We have had groups come from the army base, as well as the air force base. They will have one or two shooters that place "OK" But for the most part, the groups do not do that well. Then again, the same can be said for LEO's.

Hmm, if anybody thinks the average service member can't compare to competition shooters, I would invite them to try their hand in a military environment, say like Afghanistan.

Ok, I know all military members aren't sharpshoooters and initially their marksmanship training only lasts from a few days to a couple weeks, unlike the years of regular practice competitive shooters do, the average service members is by far a better marksman than the average gun owner. You can't expect much more than that from a system designed to turn millions of citizens, many of whom have never fired a weapon, into an effective fighting force.

So yeah, take a random selection of 100 competitive shooters pitted against 100 servicemen and the competition shooters will win hands down. But then take the 100 best in each category and see who does better.

Oh, one more thought; I wonder how many civilian competition shooters got their initial marksmanship training in the military.

It is all apples to oranges. You can take a bunch of bubbas and hillbillies from the sticks that have never been in the military or competitive shooters and they are very good, way better than average shooters.

In the wars past it has always been the country boys that were the true marksmen in the militias and the ones during the Civil War on either side that showed up to camp able to shoot a flea off a bears butt at 300yds.

The military can improve a shooter and competition can also hone a shooters skill. But the country boy is a product of his or her environment with skills learned from their fathers and their grand fathers. For them firearms are a way of life and in a lot of cases they still provide meat on the table for their families.

Many city peoplle come in the miltary with the idea that "Kick" from a firearm is extremely painful, almost deadly. It takes some practice just to get them past that idea. Besides the military training is not so much accuracy, as getting them to lay down covering fire. That keeps enemy heads down making an opportunity for other things to happen. A good marksman is good no matter what he's wearing. It just takes practice and concentration.

Like jack said, I too think it's apples and oranges. Top Shot is the perfect example of this. One group is trained for man-sized targets, the other, the smallest possible groups, respectively. There are interesting outcomes to this, like on Top Shot. I believe it all comes down to the individual. Background experience has a part of it too.